ML20107B456
Text
~
e UNIT ID GTATCS ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION oinacion Avs or asGULATOstY OMn ATIONS 1 *1 i
massOes s
?
s7o anoao synter NEWAnK, NEW JEnSEY 07102 APR 10 m73 R. H. Smith, Acting Senior, Facilities Radiological Secti
_ Directorate of Regulatory Operations, Region I on RO INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-219/73-02 JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY OYSTER CREEK An inspection was conducted on February following up on allegations relative to adverse radiological c ndi i 13-16, 1973 for purposes of at the facility.
The allegations were received by the RO:I office in o
t ons d
a letter, dated February 6,1973, without a signature, and identifi d i the closing, as a " concerned employee".
e n
housekeeping problems, high exposure use,The allegations included, general levels, outside storage of waste drums, leaking drumshigh radiation and conta storage, and unsafe conditions 1n the radwaste facility.
, chromated water by statements in the letter, management has failed to correct th As evidenced even after constant complaints to the safety department.
e conditions, In general, inspection findings verified that conditions wer in the letter.
with little effort given to review of records, radio e as described the letter releases, a,nd other areas normally reviewed during an inspect y
of this limited review, approximately 27 violations in 10 differ In spite gories were identitled.
ment control systems, and one relating to exposure controls wer ent cata-e identified.
Inspection findings showed that management control system for implementation of the program were poorly definednon Responsib111 ties determine program effectiveness was in evidence.
No audit system to visors are not required to formally (in writing) report on their a ti i iL identify problems, or otherwise be accountable c v t es, those responsible for the program were negligent in th iIn the inspectors opinio gram needs.
e r response to pro-Two cases in point to the above; (1) the radiation prot under-staffed and the supervisor (in his own words) ection group is to higher management made issue of the need; (2) in general management wa
, or e problems e
9 9604160327 960213 PDR FOIA DEKOK95-258 PDR
J
, 1.
drums of waste in inventory, but took little action to low tory.
In the words of management,
'..j waste".
"it took exposure to get rid of the Little did they realize the exposure used ir. living with the
'C problem.
No ultimatums were given to anyone relative to resolving the problem.
I don't think they could, "see the woods for the trees".
demonstrated during the closeout meeting.To illustrate the po y
The inspector asked him if he l
had knowledge of the condiitons in the plant, as evidenced by the numerous 6
violations or as described by the inspector.
He responded, "it 's obvious that I don't, these people don't even know".
The reference to "these people" was a motion towards the five supervisors in attendence at meeting.
the In the inspector's opinion, the violations noted and the general radio-logical conditions observed did not pose a threat to health and safety Some of the problems noted can be corrected with little effort.
all problem will take a concerted effort to resolve.
The over-will have to identify the various problems, establish direction, and "m-Specifically, th piement needed changes.
i I would recommend a reinspection of the program af ter a reasonable time period f2 months) for the licensee to adjust to the needs.
, thE3 g
i A'
d =w + z R. M Meyer
[
i Radiation Specialist
]
1
?O 19l(1 r
't. Cantrell
~ //
Reactor Inspector 1
//
~
'l t
[ n R.g riess l
fiivironmental Specialist l
4 9
f
)
)
i
..,